SAMUEL HOUSTON, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court reversed a conviction for maintaining a gaming room, finding that the trial court's jury instructions may have deprived the defendant of the presumption of innocence. The case highlights the importance of properly instructing juries on the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt.
Yes, the trial court's refusal to give the specific requested instruction, in conjunction with the general instruction provided, may have led the jury to disregard the presumption of innocence. Therefore, a new trial is warranted.
“the law presumes every man innocent until he is proven guilty by proper legal evidence, and if you have any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, arising from the evidence, your shall acquit him.”
This quote represents the substance of the jury instruction that was requested and refused by the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff in error was convicted of unlawfully keeping a room for gaming. The trial court refused a requested jury instruction regarding the presu…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Presumption Of Innocence cases and more on FLexlaw
Mr. Justice Raney
delivered the opinion of the court;
This is a writ of error to a judgment of the Criminal Court of Record of Duval county, the plaintiff in error having been convicted upon information charging him with having unlawfully kept, exercised and maintained a room for the purpose of gaming.
The same instructions that were asked and refused in the case of Wooten vs. State, handed down with this [supra, p. 335] were presented and denied in this, and the same charges were given to the jury in this as were given in that, except that stated in the fourth subdivision of our opinion in the former case, to the effect that “ the law presumes every man innocent until he is proven guilty by proper legal evidence, and if you have any reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, arising from the evidence, your shall acquit him.” The effect of this charge as doing away with the necessity of giving the instruction set out in the fourth subdivision of that opinion, which was asked and refused, is fully explained. If it had not been given we should have granted a new trial in Wooten’s case. There is nothing in the statute under which the information in these cases were filed that deprives a person charged under it of the benefit and protection of the presumption of innocence which remains with every one upon trial for crime as long as there is a reasonable doubt of his guilt. Whart. Cr. Ev., Secs. 322, 718. In the absence from the record in this case of the charge given in the other, we cannot but feel that the jury may, in view of the refusal of the Judge to give the instruction asked, have withheld from the plaintiff in error the benefit of the presumption in question, and have attributed to the fourth section of the statute an effect to which it is not entitled.
A new trial must be granted, and the opinion in the Wooten case is sufficient as to any point suggested by the record before us as likely to arise in this case upon a new trial.
The judgment is reversed and a new trial granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Adams v. State, 28 Fla. 511 (Fla. 1891)
-
Will Blackwell and Robert Blackwell v. The State of Floirda, 79 Fla. 709 (Fla. 1920)…v. Commonwealth, 86 Penn. St. 54; People v. Fong Ah Sing, 64 Cal. 253; Landis v. State, 70 Ga. 651; Pollard v. State, 53 Miss. 410; Means v. State, 10 Texas Ct. App. 16; State v. Lewis, 69 Mo. 92; People v. Pearsoll, 50 Mich. 233; Houston v. State, 24 Fla. 356; 5 South. Rep. 48; Kerr on Law of Homicide, Secs. 512, 522.” I think the instruction in relation to flight is erroneous and harmful, because it charges on the effect of the testimony. The court said: “The fact of flight is a circumstance to be cons…